\section{Experiments}
The agent is being tested under the Genius negotiation environment.
Within this environment there are several agents against which the Agent Feruthol will compete.
Using Genius benchmarking and result visualization several tests will be performed, to see the efficiency of Feruthol.
Amongst the opposing agents there will be some that competed and performed well in ANAC 2011.
This chapter will describe the experiments performed as well as the analysis of their results.

\subsection{Successful tournaments}

This section describes three different tournament setups, where the ABiNeS agent is competing against four different negotiation partners. The ABiNeS agent receives one profile, while the other agents receive a different profile. Once the first session of the tournament has ended the other agents get the ABiNeS profile, so that The ABiNeS agent itself gets the other agents profile. Every profile is provided by the Genius-platform and determines an agent's behavior.

\subsubsection{Domain Airport}
The results that ran on the airport domain are presented in table \ref{tab:airport1} and \ref{tab:airport2}. For this table the ABiNeS agent first received the AirportSiteSelection-A-prof1 (see table \ref{tab:airport1}). The other agents got the AirportSiteSelection-A-prof2 profile. The discount factor used is $0.9$ and the reservation value is set to $0.25$

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1830 & 0.25 & 0.25\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1853 & 1.0 & 0.67\\
CUHKAgent & 1887 & 1.0 & 0.67\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1890 & 0.25 & 0.25\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with AirportSiteSelection-A-prof1 against opponents with AirportSiteSelection-A-prof2.}
\label{tab:airport1}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1893 & 0.25 & 0.25\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1896 & 0.25 & 0.25\\
CUHKAgent & 1896 & 0.25 & 0.25\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1898 & 0.97 & 0.47\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with AirportSiteSelection-A-prof2 against opponents with AirportSiteSelection-A-prof1.}
\label{tab:airport2}
\end{table}

In this tournament the Agent Feruthol performs very good against the BRAMAgent 2 and CUHKAgent when it uses the AirportSiteSelection-A-prof1 domain. However, if the Agent Feruthol uses the AirportSiteSelection-A-prof2, it does not find any agreement with both of the other agents. On the other hand the performance of agent Feruthol is great using AirportSiteSelection-A-prof2 against OMAC\_sp2012b. The possible reason for this outcome might be that the Agent Feruthol stays hardheaded until the end of the negotiation session. This means that it still tries to hold up a high utility, while other agents drop in their utility threshold toward the end, meaning they get more and more concessive and thus agree to a bid.

\subsubsection{Domain Outfit}
The tournament that ran on this domain is presented in table \ref{tab:outfit1} and \ref{tab:outfit2}. In table \ref{tab:outfit1} Agent Feruthol used the Outfit-A-prof1 profile first, while the opponents used Outfit-A-prof2 profile. The discount factor used is $0.6$ and the reservation value is set to $0.35$

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 549 & 0.8 & 0.93\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 660 & 0.80 & 0.92\\
CUHKAgent & 530 & 0.80 & 0.93\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 461 & 0.80 & 0.93\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with Outfit-A-prof1 against opponents with Outfit-A-prof2.}
\label{tab:outfit1}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1177 & 0.86 & 0.86\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1601 & 0.92 & 0.79\\
CUHKAgent & 792 & 0.86 & 0.86\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1788 & 0.86 & 0.86\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with Outfit-A-prof2 against opponents with Outfit-A-prof1.}
\label{tab:outfit2}
\end{table}
\FloatBarrier
In this experiment the Agent Feruthol's performance did not do well, although it still received high utilities. Because of the agents, finding an agreement fast, the discount factor $\delta$ remained very low, meaning the exploitation phase of the ABiNeS agent has probably not ended before finding the agreement. In table \ref{tab:airport1} the Agent Feruthol has lost against every other agent. In table \ref{tab:airport2} the agents mostly agreed on a point, where both received the same utility. Considering the loss of the previous session this not good for the final result of the tournament, because the Agent Feruthol needs better utilities than the other in order to compensate for the loss in the first phase and win the tournament.


\subsubsection{Domain Itex vs Cypress}

The tournament that ran on this domain is presented in table \ref{tab:itex1} and \ref{tab:itex2}.
In table \ref{tab:itex1} Agent Feruthol used the ItexvsCypress\_Cypress profile, the opponents used ItexvsCypress\_Itex profile.
The discount factor used is $0.5$ and the reservation value is set to $0.3$

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1438 & 0.72 & 0.63\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1902 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
CUHKAgent & 872 & 0.67 & 0.72\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1830 & 0.67 & 0.72\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with ItexvsCypress\_Cypress against opponents with ItexvsCypress\_Itex.}
\label{tab:itex1}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1488 & 0.72 & 0.67\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1898 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
CUHKAgent & 1908 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1802 & 0.72 & 0.67\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with ItexvsCypress\_Itex against opponents with ItexvsCypress\_Cypress.}
\label{tab:itex2}
\end{table}

In these experiments Agent Feruthol's performance is neither good nor bad. It looses against the OMAC\_sp2012b agent in the first round. It wins in the second round resulting in the final status of a draw. The first round against the CUHKAgent is a loss, while there is no agreement in the second round. For AgentLG the result of both rounds is a win, while there is no agreement with the BRAMAgent.

\subsection{Finding no agreement}

This section describes two different tournament setups. It is nearly similar to the last section, the main difference is that the experiments deliver no results, meaning no agreements are found.

\subsubsection{Domain Small energy}

The tournament that ran on this domain is presented in table \ref{tab:smallenergypref1} and \ref{tab:smallenergypref2}. In table \ref{tab:smallenergypref1} Agent Feruthol used the EnergySmall-A-prof1 profile, the opponents used EnergySmall-B-prof1 profile. In table \ref{tab:smallenergypref2} it was the other way round.The used discount factor is $0.7$ and the used reservation value is $0.3$

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1030 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1016 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
CUHKAgent & 1012 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1028 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with EnergySmall-A-prof1 against opponents with EnergySmall-A-prof2.}
\label{tab:smallenergypref1}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1050 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1062 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
CUHKAgent & 1048 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1066 & 0.3 & 0.3\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with EnergySmall-A-prof2 against opponents with EnergySmall-A-prof1.}
\label{tab:smallenergypref2}
\end{table}

In both experiments the agents weren't able to find an agreement. Because of that, both agents get the reservation value as utility. Receiving the reservation value is not good, neither for agent Feruthol nor for the other agents. Not getting an agreement means that no one wins the negotiation.

\subsubsection{Domain Fifty fifty}
The tournament that ran on this domain is presented in table \ref{tab:fiftyfifty1} and \ref{tab:fiftyfifty2}. In table \ref{tab:fiftyfifty1} Agent Feruthol used the FiftyFifty-A-prof1 profile, the opponent has used the FiftyFifty-A-prof2 profile. The discount factor used is $0.9$ and the reservation value is set to $0.2$

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1936 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1886 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
CUHKAgent & 1887 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1881 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with FiftyFifty-A-prof1 against opponents with FiftyFifty-A-prof2.}
\label{tab:fiftyfifty1}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\textbf{Opponent} & \textbf{Rounds} & \textbf{Feruthol's Utility} & \textbf{Opponents Utility}\\
AgentLG & 1886 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
BRAMAgent 2 & 1956 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
CUHKAgent & 1937 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
OMAC\_sp2012b & 1938 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Agent Feruthol with FiftyFifty-A-prof2 against opponents with FiftyFifty-A-prof1.}
\label{tab:fiftyfifty2}
\end{table}

The result is the same as in the first experiment, resulting in the fact that no agreement is found and all agents get their reservation value.

\subsection{Varying the parameter WEIGHT}

Figures \ref{pic:weight5} and \ref{pic:weight001} show the bid process for almost similar situations between Agent Feruthol and the OMAC\_sp2012b agent. In fig.\ref{pic:weight5} the parameter WEIGHT for Agent Feruthol is set higher than in fig.\ref{pic:weight001}. The consequence of changing this parameter is that in fig.\ref{pic:weight001} Agent Feruthol proposes more bids, resulting in a lower utility for it, than in fig.\ref{pic:weight5}. In the end both agents can always reach an agreement, regardless of the value of WEIGHT. One flaw during a negotiation process may occur when WEIGHT is set to $0.5$. If this value is chosen, Agent Feruthol won't agree to any bids other than $1.0$. 
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Pictures/weight5.png}
\caption{Bidding process with the parameter WEIGHT for Agent Feruthol set to $0.5$}
\label{pic:weight5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Pictures/weight001.png}
\caption{Bidding process with the parameter WEIGHT for Agent Feruthol set to $0.001$}
\label{pic:weight001}
\end{figure}

\FloatBarrier
\section{Conclusion}

In general Agent Feruthol's performance is satisfying.
Offers resulting in a low utility are always rejected, even towards the end a well balanced minimum utility value is maintained.
The fact that its minimal acceptable utility rises towards the end, it is able to win against a variety of other agents.
A negative observation is that Nash Point values are rarely reached.
This behavior is caused by the increase of the threshold towards the end of the negotiation.
In some scenarios this means that opposing agents propose a bid which is just a little below the threshold, thus has a very high utility for Agent Feruthol, but it is not accepted because of the high threshold.
This causes the negotiation to run out of time before an agreement is met, so that the final utilities of the agents are set to the reservation value.
